EU tries to scupper the UK
Discussion
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/feb/19/ban...
Good old European Union...always there to help in time of need, makes you feel warm all over...
And let's not forget they can demand that we rescue lesser EU states in financial need...
Do we need more reasons to leave this EU that determines to bleed us dry every moment of every day..?
Ohhhhh.....NOW I'm mad, prepare the haggis bombs and launch Mandelson. Oh, no, bugger, he's on their side
Good old European Union...always there to help in time of need, makes you feel warm all over...
And let's not forget they can demand that we rescue lesser EU states in financial need...
Do we need more reasons to leave this EU that determines to bleed us dry every moment of every day..?
Crappy newspaper said:
EU fights plan to ring-fence British banks' toxic assets. Brussels cites competition issues to thwart state-backed insurance scheme
David Gow in Brussels and Jill Treanor The Guardian, Thursday 19 February 2009
The government's multi-billion pound insurance scheme to ring-fence British banks' toxic assets and reboot lending to the recession-hit economy has run into a wall of opposition in the EU, the Guardian has learned.
The European commission and several leading EU countries are understood to have objected that the UK proposals are a serious threat to competition and to the much-prized single market.
The commission is due to publish final guidance on how to treat their toxic or impaired assets next Wednesday. It is understood to be insisting that the UK Treasury impose a hefty premium on the banks benefiting from the insurance.
Royal Bank of Scotland, soon to be 70% owned by the British taxpayer, is the guinea pig for the scheme which is regarded as vital in ring-fencing an estimated £150bn of toxic assets on its balance sheet. Details of the scheme are yet to be finalised, but there are expectations of a government announcement when RBS publishes its 2008 figures - expected to show a £28bn loss - next Thursday .
Analysts at Credit Suisse have assumed that RBS and other banks signing up to the insurance scheme would pay an annual fee of 3% and might not have to pay in the first year of what might be a three- to five-year arrangement. The government has made it clear that RBS would not have to find the cash - which would indicate annual payments of £4.5bn - but could pay in other ways. The Credit Suisse analysts suggest that RBS, which has received £20bn of government funds, could pay using deferred tax assets or issue subordinated debt or other bonds to prevent the government's stake from rising any higher. RBS shares closed last night at 18.1p down 12.5%.
Brussels is also determined to force Britain to shrink the business of its state-owned or semi-nationalised banks through restructuring schemes as the eventual price for approving the scheme.
Last autumn Neelie Kroes, the EU competition commissioner, and colleagues imposed at least 10 conditions, including stiff charges and a ban on dividends, for sanctioning the government's £250bn bank recapitalisation scheme.
Kroes's department is now taking the same approach in negotiations with Whitehall. Brussels is also considering forcing France to raise the 6% premium on its €6bn (£5.3bn) loans to its two biggest carmakers. Renault and PSA Peugeot Citroën.
Britain has been at the forefront of EU countries pressing for early approval on how to define, evaluate and treat toxic assets said to amount trillions of euros in Europe. Other countries urging a rapid solution in the run-up to an emergency EU summit in Brussels on 1 March are Holland, whose biggest bank ING declared a €3.7bn loss in the final quarter of 2008 yesterday, and Germany, where the cabinet approved legislation to take banks under full state control.
Britain pressed to be allowed to go ahead with its scheme at last week's meeting of EU finance ministers.
Subsequent talks at the EU's economic and financial committee, chaired by senior commission officials and embracing senior treasury officials from all 27 countries, have failed to resolve serious differences, according to insiders. Countries whose banks are less exposed to toxic assets are mounting the fiercest resistance to the insurance schemes, they added.
The Treasury has yet to submit its proposed insurance scheme, amid suggestions that it is waiting for the commission to issue its final guidance next week. It said yesterday: "The government has worked very closely with the EU commission on support for financial institutions in the UK and will continue to do so. There will be further announcements relating to the detail of the asset protection scheme by the end of the month."
David Gow in Brussels and Jill Treanor The Guardian, Thursday 19 February 2009
The government's multi-billion pound insurance scheme to ring-fence British banks' toxic assets and reboot lending to the recession-hit economy has run into a wall of opposition in the EU, the Guardian has learned.
The European commission and several leading EU countries are understood to have objected that the UK proposals are a serious threat to competition and to the much-prized single market.
The commission is due to publish final guidance on how to treat their toxic or impaired assets next Wednesday. It is understood to be insisting that the UK Treasury impose a hefty premium on the banks benefiting from the insurance.
Royal Bank of Scotland, soon to be 70% owned by the British taxpayer, is the guinea pig for the scheme which is regarded as vital in ring-fencing an estimated £150bn of toxic assets on its balance sheet. Details of the scheme are yet to be finalised, but there are expectations of a government announcement when RBS publishes its 2008 figures - expected to show a £28bn loss - next Thursday .
Analysts at Credit Suisse have assumed that RBS and other banks signing up to the insurance scheme would pay an annual fee of 3% and might not have to pay in the first year of what might be a three- to five-year arrangement. The government has made it clear that RBS would not have to find the cash - which would indicate annual payments of £4.5bn - but could pay in other ways. The Credit Suisse analysts suggest that RBS, which has received £20bn of government funds, could pay using deferred tax assets or issue subordinated debt or other bonds to prevent the government's stake from rising any higher. RBS shares closed last night at 18.1p down 12.5%.
Brussels is also determined to force Britain to shrink the business of its state-owned or semi-nationalised banks through restructuring schemes as the eventual price for approving the scheme.
Last autumn Neelie Kroes, the EU competition commissioner, and colleagues imposed at least 10 conditions, including stiff charges and a ban on dividends, for sanctioning the government's £250bn bank recapitalisation scheme.
Kroes's department is now taking the same approach in negotiations with Whitehall. Brussels is also considering forcing France to raise the 6% premium on its €6bn (£5.3bn) loans to its two biggest carmakers. Renault and PSA Peugeot Citroën.
Britain has been at the forefront of EU countries pressing for early approval on how to define, evaluate and treat toxic assets said to amount trillions of euros in Europe. Other countries urging a rapid solution in the run-up to an emergency EU summit in Brussels on 1 March are Holland, whose biggest bank ING declared a €3.7bn loss in the final quarter of 2008 yesterday, and Germany, where the cabinet approved legislation to take banks under full state control.
Britain pressed to be allowed to go ahead with its scheme at last week's meeting of EU finance ministers.
Subsequent talks at the EU's economic and financial committee, chaired by senior commission officials and embracing senior treasury officials from all 27 countries, have failed to resolve serious differences, according to insiders. Countries whose banks are less exposed to toxic assets are mounting the fiercest resistance to the insurance schemes, they added.
The Treasury has yet to submit its proposed insurance scheme, amid suggestions that it is waiting for the commission to issue its final guidance next week. It said yesterday: "The government has worked very closely with the EU commission on support for financial institutions in the UK and will continue to do so. There will be further announcements relating to the detail of the asset protection scheme by the end of the month."
Ohhhhh.....NOW I'm mad, prepare the haggis bombs and launch Mandelson. Oh, no, bugger, he's on their side
I think the saying is "If you're in the s
t it feels better to have company". Obviously we have much more freedom to navigate our way out of this mess rather than the eurozone countries which are like a chain gang all connected together, if one falls the others have to drag them along on their a55.
t it feels better to have company". Obviously we have much more freedom to navigate our way out of this mess rather than the eurozone countries which are like a chain gang all connected together, if one falls the others have to drag them along on their a55.
Actually, in principle, I'm with the EU on this one.
Before the single market, financial services were very, very expensive here. All of the cheap credit, mortgages, free bank accounts etc etc are a product of competition from Europe (and indeed further afield).
You cannot reap the benefit of this competition and then, when it all goes wrong, just go state owned and then compete with others who do not have the same advantage. That's what the EU State Aid provisions are all about.
Management at these banks screwed up. In a free market economy, that means that they are due to fail.
Look at AIG. Rescued by the US government, and continuing to thus write insurance at premiums that others simply cannot match. When others fall because they cannot make a profit, AIG will be free to hike rates to wherever it desires.
Competition is good; and it needs to beprotected. It's not just us - all EU states are subject to the state aid regime, so if anyone else were trying this (and I believe they are - notably the Benelux countries), they'll be in the same boat.
This is sensationalistm inaccurate and part-reporting of the worst kind.
Before the single market, financial services were very, very expensive here. All of the cheap credit, mortgages, free bank accounts etc etc are a product of competition from Europe (and indeed further afield).
You cannot reap the benefit of this competition and then, when it all goes wrong, just go state owned and then compete with others who do not have the same advantage. That's what the EU State Aid provisions are all about.
Management at these banks screwed up. In a free market economy, that means that they are due to fail.
Look at AIG. Rescued by the US government, and continuing to thus write insurance at premiums that others simply cannot match. When others fall because they cannot make a profit, AIG will be free to hike rates to wherever it desires.
Competition is good; and it needs to beprotected. It's not just us - all EU states are subject to the state aid regime, so if anyone else were trying this (and I believe they are - notably the Benelux countries), they'll be in the same boat.
This is sensationalistm inaccurate and part-reporting of the worst kind.
Oh - and "leave the EU" is no solution, for those of you who think it is. The moment we do (and you can bet there'll be no advantageous trade tariff treaty), our exports (including financial services) will be subject to whatever tariffs other European countries wish to charge. We'll be dead in the water.
Frankly I'd love the EU to block this I dont agree with it as a solution. I didnt agree with nationalising any of the Banks. Every country has a Nationalised bank and in the UK its the Bank of England.
So I would have let NR fail - in reality what would happen is investors would buy up the remains of the bank, the only ones who would suffer are the share holders.
So I would have let NR fail - in reality what would happen is investors would buy up the remains of the bank, the only ones who would suffer are the share holders.
Harry Flashman said:
Oh - and "leave the EU" is no solution, for those of you who think it is. The moment we do (and you can bet there'll be no advantageous trade tariff treaty), our exports (including financial services) will be subject to whatever tariffs other European countries wish to charge. We'll be dead in the water.
Nope. That wouldn't happen. Those frenchies and Germans (the real power in the EU) rather like selling us lots of cars/consumer goods/food etc.
It's a dentist chair situation. Besides, if we leave we could join NAFTA.
AKM
Welshbeef said:
Frankly I'd love the EU to block this I dont agree with it as a solution. I didnt agree with nationalising any of the Banks. Every country has a Nationalised bank and in the UK its the Bank of England.
So I would have let NR fail - in reality what would happen is investors would buy up the remains of the bank, the only ones who would suffer are the share holders.
Tend to be with you - but depositors would lose too, and that's why the government wants to protect the banks. In the case ov virtually any other industry, it's shareholders, workforce and creditors who suffer when it goes under. With a bank, you have significant chunks of the general public who have mortgages, savings etc etc who could lose everything. This is why banks are getting bailed out, and others aren't (or certainly shouldn't be; car industry bailouts are stupid - supporting unionised dinosaurs that deserve to be extinct).So I would have let NR fail - in reality what would happen is investors would buy up the remains of the bank, the only ones who would suffer are the share holders.
andymadmak said:
Harry Flashman said:
Oh - and "leave the EU" is no solution, for those of you who think it is. The moment we do (and you can bet there'll be no advantageous trade tariff treaty), our exports (including financial services) will be subject to whatever tariffs other European countries wish to charge. We'll be dead in the water.
Nope. That wouldn't happen. Those frenchies and Germans (the real power in the EU) rather like selling us lots of cars/consumer goods/food etc.
It's a dentist chair situation. Besides, if we leave we could join NAFTA.
AKM
Harry Flashman said:
Actually, in principle, I'm with the EU on this one.
Before the single market, financial services were very, very expensive here. All of the cheap credit, mortgages, free bank accounts etc etc are a product of competition from Europe (and indeed further afield).
You cannot reap the benefit of this competition and then, when it all goes wrong, just go state owned and then compete with others who do not have the same advantage. That's what the EU State Aid provisions are all about.
Management at these banks screwed up. In a free market economy, that means that they are due to fail.
Look at AIG. Rescued by the US government, and continuing to thus write insurance at premiums that others simply cannot match. When others fall because they cannot make a profit, AIG will be free to hike rates to wherever it desires.
Competition is good; and it needs to beprotected. It's not just us - all EU states are subject to the state aid regime, so if anyone else were trying this (and I believe they are - notably the Benelux countries), they'll be in the same boat.
This is sensationalistm inaccurate and part-reporting of the worst kind.
You are clearly suffering from a build up of toxic sperm. Get it sorted.Before the single market, financial services were very, very expensive here. All of the cheap credit, mortgages, free bank accounts etc etc are a product of competition from Europe (and indeed further afield).
You cannot reap the benefit of this competition and then, when it all goes wrong, just go state owned and then compete with others who do not have the same advantage. That's what the EU State Aid provisions are all about.
Management at these banks screwed up. In a free market economy, that means that they are due to fail.
Look at AIG. Rescued by the US government, and continuing to thus write insurance at premiums that others simply cannot match. When others fall because they cannot make a profit, AIG will be free to hike rates to wherever it desires.
Competition is good; and it needs to beprotected. It's not just us - all EU states are subject to the state aid regime, so if anyone else were trying this (and I believe they are - notably the Benelux countries), they'll be in the same boat.
This is sensationalistm inaccurate and part-reporting of the worst kind.
Welshbeef said:
Frankly I'd love the EU to block this I dont agree with it as a solution. I didnt agree with nationalising any of the Banks. Every country has a Nationalised bank and in the UK its the Bank of England.
There is a difference between a nationalised bank and a central bank. The Euro countries have one central bank btw.Harry Flashman said:
Actually, in principle, I'm with the EU on this one.
The European commission and several leading EU countries are understood to have objected that the UK proposals are a serious threat to competition and to the much-prized single market.Did you miss that....?
EU says...we screw your banks so ours can be more competitive
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff